, for exactly the reasons you just mentioned, because the government, you know, from the top down refuses to acknowledge this as terrorism, refuses to acknowledge the radical islamist angle, that he was communicating with a spiritual leader of al-qaeda before this attack happened, and because they still want to call it a workplace violence incident, they're unwilling to take all the necessary steps they would need to acknowledge that this guy's a traitor, killed our fellow members, and we're going the use every step possible. instead he's just a regular defendant on a murder trial, no islamic angle, and they're limited. megyn: well, you could make the argument that this will preserve the credibility of the verdict if it comes down guilty at the end of all these proceedings, that we bent over backward to protect this guy's rights as we do in our criminal justice system. pete, great to have you here. thanks so much for your perspective. >>> up next, a bombshell in the legal battle between the lawmakers in one state and their teachers' union. >>> plus, the woman best known for running "vogue